• How loud would a sound have to be in order to be heard on the other side of the planet?

    Is it even physically possible? Wouldn't the sound itself (difference in air pressure) have a destructive force like a shock wave? I'm thinking either a meteor striking the earth or the loudest loud speaker imaginable.
    Is it even physically possible? Wouldn't the sound itself (difference in air pressure) have a destructive force like a shock wave? I'm thinking either a meteor striking the earth or the loudest loud speaker imaginable.
    8 answers · 2 days ago
  • Why are objects in mirror closer than they appear?

    Best answer: ,,, it is often useful to have a mirror with a larger than normal field of view one such application is the outside mirror on the passenger side of some vehicles in order to get the larger view the mirror is slightly convex convex mirrors produce reduced, upright, virtual images When you get a good response,... show more
    Best answer: ,,,
    it is often useful to have a mirror with a larger than normal field of view
    one such application is the outside mirror on the passenger side of some vehicles
    in order to get the larger view
    the mirror is slightly convex
    convex mirrors produce reduced, upright, virtual images

    When you get a good response,
    please consider giving a best answer.
    This is the only reward we get.
    You may have to wait an hour to award BA.
    12 answers · 5 days ago
  • GRAVITY...falling objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum? But surely heavier objects have more gravity and therefore would fall faster?

    So, I have always understood that falling objects like a feather and egg fall at the same speed in a vacuum. However,the egg having more mass should have more gravity and therefore a stronger gravitational pull towards the earth. I read somewhere that falling objects basically don't have gravity, which seems... show more
    So, I have always understood that falling objects like a feather and egg fall at the same speed in a vacuum. However,the egg having more mass should have more gravity and therefore a stronger gravitational pull towards the earth. I read somewhere that falling objects basically don't have gravity, which seems silly. Doesn't everything have gravity? If everything has gravity and things with higher mass have more gravity then surely heavy things fall faster.
    22 answers · 5 days ago
  • Do magnets work in outer space, or is magnetism something that is indigenous to Earth?

    I'm guessing a compass wouldn't work in outer space due to not having the Earth's magnetic field to align itself with, but do magnets even work in space in the first place? Or do they suddenly become demagnetized chunks of rock or metal(not sure what they consider magnets as, maybe rock)
    I'm guessing a compass wouldn't work in outer space due to not having the Earth's magnetic field to align itself with, but do magnets even work in space in the first place? Or do they suddenly become demagnetized chunks of rock or metal(not sure what they consider magnets as, maybe rock)
    8 answers · 2 days ago
  • What is the distance it takes from Camb B to base Camp O ? ( Physics Vectors) How do you draw this?
  • How long is a piece of string?

    15 answers · 5 days ago
  • Name the rays which are considered death rays? a) X-Rays b) laser rays c) Gamma rays d) Ultra violet rays?

    Best answer: Gamma rays are most dangerous, I'm pretty sure. However, UV rays can also be damaging in excess. Because of this, I would guess Gamma rays are most likely to be called 'death rays'.
    Best answer: Gamma rays are most dangerous, I'm pretty sure. However, UV rays can also be damaging in excess. Because of this, I would guess Gamma rays are most likely to be called 'death rays'.
    6 answers · 2 days ago
  • If one were to sexually orgasm in space, would the kinetic energy cause the individual to be propelled in a backwards velocity?

    Best answer: Vibrating gas molecules cause air pressure. Each and every collision imparts a momentum away from each other. Unless there is some bonding as there is in solids, the thermal vibration causes the repulsion of gas molecules. Now there is no fundamental difference. If you are vibrating back and forth then you will... show more
    Best answer: Vibrating gas molecules cause air pressure. Each and every collision imparts a momentum away from each other.
    Unless there is some bonding as there is in solids, the thermal vibration causes the repulsion of gas molecules.

    Now there is no fundamental difference. If you are vibrating back and forth then you will repel your partner.
    Without some attractive force holding you together you will never get the opportunity to orgasm in space.

    Which brings us back to the same fundamental law of sex. Unless you are attractive you end up not getting any.
    12 answers · 5 days ago
  • Would this idea for a physics breaking propulsion system work? Diagram included...?

    Would this idea for a physics breaking propulsion system work? Diagram included...?

    In this diagram there is a pressurised space craft. The module is filled with ionised gas, probably hydrogen. Suddenly two holes open on either side of the craft and the ionised hydrogen rushes from the front and the back of the craft and out the sides. The gas is then captured for re-use in an electromagnetic... show more
    In this diagram there is a pressurised space craft. The module is filled with ionised gas, probably hydrogen. Suddenly two holes open on either side of the craft and the ionised hydrogen rushes from the front and the back of the craft and out the sides. The gas is then captured for re-use in an electromagnetic field. Alright now the part I'm wondering about. The propeller. If it was thrusting ionised hydrogen backwards into the rushing hydrogen would the wave from the propeller ever reach the back end of the ship or module? Would this produce thrust???
    4 answers · 2 days ago
  • Why is time traveling to the future more possible than time traveling to the past?

    Best answer: because we are all traveling into the future at the rate of one second per second.

    Whereas travel into the past is, with present physics, not possible.
    Best answer: because we are all traveling into the future at the rate of one second per second.

    Whereas travel into the past is, with present physics, not possible.
    16 answers · 6 days ago
  • A delivery man starts at the post office, drives 40 km north,?

    A delivery man starts at the post office, drives 40 km north,?

    Best answer: Y = 50+40+30√2
    X = -20+30√2
    d = √132.43^2+22.43 = 134.32 km
    Best answer: Y = 50+40+30√2
    X = -20+30√2
    d = √132.43^2+22.43 = 134.32 km
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • I dont understand this physics question?

    I did an AS physics past paper and on one of the questions I got wrong, I dont know why it is wrong. I couldnt get the screenshot to work so I have attached the link to the paper and it is question 33. I chose B because I thought if current is increasing, the load resistance must have decreased as the resistance of... show more
    I did an AS physics past paper and on one of the questions I got wrong, I dont know why it is wrong. I couldnt get the screenshot to work so I have attached the link to the paper and it is question 33. I chose B because I thought if current is increasing, the load resistance must have decreased as the resistance of the cell is constant so if the load resistance has gone down, that should mean the cell receives a larger share of the emf so voltage across the cell would go up. So I chose B but why was the correct answer A? http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-paper...
    9 answers · 7 days ago
  • Does Time depend on Matter?

    Best answer: The close connection between matter (more generally energy density whether it be matter or radiation) and time can be be seen in the theories of relativity. Conventional classical physics is extended into the more general spacetime by extending vectors, such as momentum, into vectors with both space AND time... show more
    Best answer: The close connection between matter (more generally energy density whether it be matter or radiation) and time can be be seen in the theories of relativity. Conventional classical physics is extended into the more general spacetime by extending vectors, such as momentum, into vectors with both space AND time components. For example, classical 3-momentum is extended into a reference frame invariant 4-momentum by adding a component of momentum in the direction of time. The time component of 4-momentum multiplied by a constant ‘c’ is total relativistic energy. Rest energy (e=mc^2) results from the time component of momentum in a rest frame.

    So, the above is an illustration that the laws of physics take on a reference frame invariance by extending classical physics by adding time components to vectors. To the extent that relativity is correct, it would seem that matter/energy cannot be expressed properly without the consideration of time, nor can we express the invariance of the laws of physics without consideration of time.

    In general relativity, Einstein argued that matter/energy were inseparable from spacetime.
    5 answers · 2 days ago